Science: Truth or Fraud?
Introduction: This article addresses the question:
is scientific wisdom backed up by the Truth or
is it all one huge Fraud?
Abstract: The views expressed in this article are based on
recent discussions of this question. These views
can be summed up as follows: Scientists have to gal to
demand large sums of public money, forcibly taken from
common people to fund schemes such as military research.
Scientists are a privileged bunch living in an ivory tower,
supposedly searching for this illusive truth. Well, the
search has ended here, in failure, the house of cards starts
to collapse and the word is out that science is a fraud!
Let the fraud be exposed!
A. The Horror of Science!
Nowadays, there are more and more people who dare to
speak out against the paternalistic, autocratic
situation in science, specifically in physics.
Unfortunately, one only hears about these things when
someone questions this situation who appears to have
made it as a scientist. As if the author, only by the
virtue of becoming a successful scientist, has finally
earned the right to speak! Without the author's
scientific notoriety, such a story would not have
been told. Seldom does one hear about the countless
numbers of students and people in general, whose lives
have been damaged because they dared to question the
wisdom of science. Even at kindergarten, teacher are
preaching science like devoted zealots.
In some respects, even the scientists themselves are
victims, in that they have fallen into the trap of
believing that they somehow are more intelligent than
other people. They happily wear the blinkers and walk
in line with a system that keeps dictators in positions
of power and that silences the masses.
The establishment still rewards people who walk in line
and who proudly add academic titles to their names.
Students who do not graduate because of their doubts,
are stigmatized as loosers and drop-outs.
In future times, once this horror will have been more
fully exposed, academic titles will turn into records
of shame, more incriminating than ciminal records
themselves. And that is not a prophecy nor a scientific
prediction, it's just one of those gut-feelings that
carries more weight than a library full of research data.
B. What is Science?
Firstly, let's be clear about what is science.
Universities invented scientists as a class. Universities
give titles to some, while excluding others and thus
creating an elite. What complicates matters is that
science is sometimes restricted to certain specializations,
but science can also be extended to many, if not all, academic areas.
Control over many sectors of society in turn hinges on professional
qualifications, thus extending the concept of science
into a professional career. Research versus non-research funding
further complicates matters. But the issue remains the same.
Some people are privileged over others, merely because they call
A typical claim of such scientists is that computers cannot
be built without science. But computers were actually built
by drop-outs such as Steven Jobs and Bill Gates, not by
scientists. These drop-outs realized in time that their
university time was a waste of their talents. By the way,
the monopolitic policies of Microsoft should be rejected.
But the monopoly of scientists is far more evil by comparison.
People who manage to put something together that works,
are not scientists, no, they are engineers, technicians,
mechanics, entrepreneurs, etc. Even more credit should be
given to the inventors and visionaries without academic
titles and to all the common folks who assisted in making all
these things in what they are now. All such people will generally
add a disclaimer to product of their work, warning against
non-intended use, they will warn people that their
products may not work under all conditions.
Scientists, by contrast, have the arrogance to claim
that their weird ideas are nothing less than the Truth,
that their statements somehow have 'universal and
eternal validity'. They see themselves as more
omniscient and omnipotent than the Pope.
But scientists do not make practical things, they only
come up with theories (which, by the way, are invariably
rejected by other scientists again). Scientists are not
checked by commercial realities nor by clients who ask for a
service. Scientists can put together a torture chamber
under the pretence that this will somehow advance the
cause of science, and few people will object.
Scientists do not make practical things and they should not
be paid to do other things either. Without scientists, the
world would have ended up with far better computers. Think
of the vast amounts of money poured into universities in vain.
Think of the huge wast of time and efforts of students and
staff. Universities should not be paid with money
forcibly extracted from common people to allow
scientists to basically do what they like without
accountibility. The peer review that is common among scientists
is like allowing criminals to judge their mates! They fail on
the most important criterion: impartiality!
When computers became a household item, universities
scrambled to put together courses in computer science,
cashing in on the demand. They had to hire people from
industry and they still do, except for obsolete
courses. Nowadys, people who want to get a high salary,
follow a Mircosoft course, rather than a University study.
As it turns out, Microsoft certification counts more than
a University degree.
Universities base their supposed superiority on scientific research,
as opposed to merely training students in technical skills.
But such research at universities has been a costly
failure. Most research now takes place outside
universities. Universities try to save face by fooling
people into thinking that the ideas dreamed up at
university are somehow fundamental and that commercial
laboratories somehow benefit by applying this when
making commercial products. But who benefits from such
'fundamental' research? Ask commercial laboratories and
they will most likely say that they prefer to receive the
money directly that is being poured into universities. Similarly,
companies would rather receive cash, instead of enjoying
the perceived benefits of 'fundamental' research.
By the way, what is research anyway? How much research
that takes place at large companies is solely designed
to evade tax and to obtain subsidies.
Common folks, who have contributed most to making
computers and other products into what they are now,
have paid for all this, yet scientists arrogantly
claim the credit. It is time that the practices of this oligarchy
are exposed for this fraud. Scientists want the
privilege of being occupied with their hobbies, without
accountibility to outsiders for what they say or do.
Scientists only want peer review, ignoring the fact that
scientists are clearly not impartial on this very issue of
accountability. On top of this, scientists want
taxpayers to pay for the lot.
C. Science's Arrogance and Fraud.
And that's where the arrogance is. Scientists are quick
to ask anyone who questions these privileges, questions
such as: Who are you to question me? What are your
academic qualifications? What academic background qualifies
you to ask such questions?
The scientific oligarchy refuses to allow outsiders (i.e.
people without academic qualifications) to question
their over-privileged situation, whereas the peers that
scientists like to see appointed to look into these
matters, are generally too proud about their academic
qualifications to seriously question their value and,
more generally, the associated privileges. And that is
what not only gives science a bad name, it makes
science into one big scheme of fraud and cover-up!
Anyone that does take a serious look into science will
observe that the 'knowledge' that all these
scientific researchers claim to possess, becomes more
rapidly obsolete every day. What some years ago looked
like firm knowledge to scientists now appears more like
Some archaic scientists may still
believe in some kind of Newtonian universe that is put
together by the grand Designer and that goes like
clockwork, but other scientists have long abandoned the
idea of laws of nature that are written in stone as
simple formulas. In fact many of today's scientists
have completely abandoned the idea of such Newtonian
laws that rule the universe, and they would declare
such ideas to be incompatible with modern science. Some
backward teachers at remote primary schools may still
try to impress pupils with omniscient attitudes, but it
certainly is not the quality of their teachings that
keeps such persons in their position.
Many years ago, Einstein introduced relativity as a
superior model, which was in time superseded by quantum
mechanics. Today, many of the most advanced scientific
models incorporate random elements, even chaos, in
efforts to approximate natural phenomena. The days that
naive people could be fooled into believing that
scientists had some sort of secret book with magic
formulas, are over. The idea that there is eternal
knowledge that grows on trees, to be picked only by
scientists, has long been exposed as a myth. People who
perpetuate and exploit that myth with the aim of
extracting further privileges and tax-payers funding,
commit something that can amount to large-scale fraud,
complete with cover-up shrouded in legally-backed
The world has been kept hostage long enough by
the scientific-military-industrial conglomerate that has such
enormous influence on politics all over the world. It
is time that people stand up and question the arrogant
scientist whose self-confindence at closer look is only
based on wind and privilege.
Again, this is where science differs from engineering. An
engineer is paid to, say, make a bridge that is strong
enough to carry the load, i.e. an engineer's task is
narrowly described. Engineers will give some kind of
guarantee that such a bridge will be strong enough to
carry the load, i.e. engineers are held accountible
for their work, but engineer will add disclaimers.
Scientists on the other hand are not held accountible, yet
such scientists will claim that their rules have universal validity,
no disclaimers added. Ironically, one scientist
can totally contradict another scientist. From a philosophical
perspective, Einstein's relativity theory is widely accepted to be
superior to Newtons rules, because it can be applied to
situations where Newton's rules run into problems.
Philosophically, the question is whether one model approximates
natural phenomena better than another. Chaos theory is
not merely used to avoid having to produce billions of
billions of calculations and accumulating computer
round-off errors, or because of data insufficiencies.
Chaos theory comprises much more, it is a fundamentally
Scientists want to see a joint body of work called Science,
ignoring that, even among scientists, there are different views,
even irreconcilable differences. In an effort to lump all such
views together, scientists argue that, say, Newton's laws
belong to a specific reference frame. And of course, scientists
insist on defining the borders of that framework themselves,
changing the goalposts when it suits them. Poets use techniques such
as tautologies. But poets will admit that these are
rhetorical techniques. The arrogance of scientists is
that they claim exclusive insight in the Truth.
Scientists like to declare to have found evidence of
their 'wisdom'. At closer look, all their 'evidence' is
nothing but a boxful of tautologies and other tricks.
Newton claimed his rules to be universally valid. This claim
ran into problems. So, science tries to put each set of
rules into a separate framework, as if quantum mechanics is
about the microcosmos and relativity is about things of
cosmic dimensions, while Newton remains perfectly valid
in between. But of course, relativity, quantum mechanics and
chaos theory do not merely apply to the teeny weeny
stuff or the really big stuff, but also to all the stuff in
between. Accordingly, Newtonian rules are not even perfectly
valid in regard to the 'stuff in beteen'. The error
factor (from a non-Newtonian point of view) may be minute, even
negligable to the technician who needs to construct something
The point is that Newton's rules are taught at school
as if they are the true rules of nature. To deliberately and
knowingly present something that is false as the truth, that
is fraud. All scientists are guilty by default, by calling
themselves scientists, by vicarious liability, by perpetuating
this myth. The fraud is that scientists arrogantly exploit a
myth in order to maintain their joint privileges for personal
benefits of each of them.
D. Science's Privileges.
Science is a creation of politicians and greedy
people who seek privilege. Science is fabricated by
universities, that have been given the privilege by
politicians to hand out academic titles. A scientist
is a label put onto people who collaborate most in this
scheme of privilege that feeds universities, national
laboratories and the gigantic military-industrial complex
that shrouds its activities behind scientific privilege,
commercial and military secrecy, and political deals.
Funding of science, of universities and of national
research laboratories is largely decided by politicians
who seek votes from the many people trapped in this scheme.
The privileges of science are not merely about who
should receive research funding. Science demands
independence, the military demands secrecy, while
industry demands protection of trade secrets. Put the
three together and accountability becomes the victim.
This is not about some specific waste of money
somewhere. The question is whether a monster has been
created that cannot be stopped, that feeds itself, that
is too powerful and reluctant to be investigated, let
alone be controlled.
The privileges of science go much further than research
grants. Science is one of the cornerstones of education,
with a huge influence on the shape of many professions
and the scope of many people's careers. The whole
education system is based on the myth that some people
have some knowledge that others lack. The education
system has many legal privileges, e.g. regarding copyright.
To get into many professions, one is legally obliged to obtain
University degrees and titles, in other words,
to first be indoctrinated with scientific ideology.
In a more market-oriented society, many if
not most scientists turn out to be unemployable. Look
at Russia - the moment market forces were introduced,
scientists were out of work in droves.
Of course, things have been constructed throughout history,
long before there were universities that
gave people academic titles and thus the exclusive
privilege to control certain professions. People
constructed things long before Newton had formulated
his laws. They did not listen to Newton's instructions
first, before constructing things like some mindless
assembly-line robots, they did not ask permission from
Again, on the one hand, scientists argue that Newton's
laws apply even retrospectively, but on the other hand
they say that Newton's laws only apply within a given framework,
defining and changing the rules as it suits them.
Scientific equations are just like tautologies and
similar techniques so often used by poets. If what is
at one side of the equation is already included in the
definition of what is at the other side of the equation,
then it is a pretty empty statement. There is nothing
wrong with this, as long as it is called poetry.
But if this is done under the name of science,
scientists make it look as if they have discovered some
hidden, eternal and universal truth. Of course, one can
regard science as just another subset of poetry, or
art, if you like, but in that case an artist shouldn't
turn up with the same old hat all the time. As artists,
scientists would not make it in the real world.
E. Implications for Education.
If what is taught as science turns out to be a fraud,
what would be the implications? Imagine that the knowledge
that a person is supposed to have gained, say, twenty years ago,
turns out to have become obsolete, even false. Why should
this person with outdated, incorrect 'knowledge' be
given an advantage over someone without a title?
Sure, commercial companies are keen to employ scientists
with the aim of making profits. But if such companies had a
choice how to spend money on staff training, they would
most likely not send that money to universities.
Why is so much government funding spent on
polishing up someone's profile, in order to make it
easier for that person to get a job with such a
company? Why should someone with the ambition to
become, say, an honest carpenter not get similar
funding? Is the answer perhaps that the carpenter is
too honest, thus refusing to participate in such a
fraudulent scheme, while scientists cover each other
up, well aware of the extent of the fraud, but
unwilling to give up their privileges?
The answer is that the education system is one of the
principle instruments in the hand of governments that
want to indoctrinate people with its values.
Newton's rules are taught at school, as school likes
children to believe that there are simple rules that
govern the universe. School is to a large extent compulsory,
adding coercion to the set of false values.
Teachers deliberately force dictatorial values upon
children and the false idea that there is some kind of
order in the universe is a cornerstone of that
The problem is that people are not allowed to decide
directly on issues like this, it is hard to even get these
issues discussed. Part of the problem is also that it is hard
for people who have been indoctrinated for so many
years that science is something good, to face up to the
possibility that they have been mislead.
School makes it look as if education is a process of
incremental understanding, rather than that Newton, relativity,
quantum mechanics and chaos are different apporaches
that are to a large extent inconsistent with each
other. Teachers like to present science as a set of
uniform rules about which they almost understand
everything. Teacher act as if university research will
find the bits and pieces that are missing in their knowledge.
This in itself is a questionable philosophy.
Teachers like to think that they have all the answers,
worse, that their views are the only truthful ones. Teachers
make it look like they have all the knowledge, but this
very attitude disqualifies their 'wisdom'. In the process,
teachers are pushing everybody into a straitjacket that doesn't
fit anyone, worse that is based on false values.
One simple solution would be to stop government funding to
science and to education in general. But it requires more
than a simple ministerial decision to change attitudes that
are so entrenched and embedded in contemporary culture.
WHEN, the World Home Education Network, advocates the
following three steps to improve the situation.
a. abolish compulsory school;
b. open up education to competition;
c. stop looking up to academic titles and subject matter.
The first two steps can be taken by politicians alone, but
to be effective, they do require endorsement of large parts of
society. The third step appears mainly a question of
cultural change. Read more about this at
WHEN, the World Home Education Network.
And as usual, Optionality Magazine suggests that the answer lies in the
cultural changes envisaged in DonParagon's
Vision of the Future.